Yesterday, The Huffington Post featured a post authored by Holly Lohuis of the Ocean Futures Society (OFS), who claimed she was “duped” into joining the Coalition for Chemical Safety. I responded to Ms. Lohuis’ post directly and would like to post my response in this space as well.
As Executive Director of the Coalition for Chemical Safety, I applaud Holly Lohuis for her commitment to our environment and for highlighting the fight to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act. I do want to take issue with her critique however.
CCS is very clear on its website about its principles. The Coalition for Chemical Safety is for a comprehensive yet balanced reform of our nation’s chemical safety laws.
We believe the law should be such that protecting public safety is its top priority. The EPA should have the power to determine chemical safety and restrict chemicals that are deemed not safe for use as intended.
It also means, however, that the law should promote the kind of chemical innovation that leads to better solar cells (powered by chemically based films), electric cars (powered by chemically based batteries), more powerful microchips (etched by chemical compounds) and so much more that makes America a technology leader. It should also promote the American jobs those chemical innovations provide, rather than sending them overseas.
The Coalition for Chemical Safety is also very clear on who its members are – ranging from large trade associations (yes, including the American Chemistry Council) to small businesses and individuals across the country. They’re all listed on our website. No one is duped.
If Holly Lohuis is fighting for a law that protects public safety while preserving American innovation and supporting American jobs, she may not be a CCS member but she shares our goals.
Furthermore, Ms. Lohuis’ post was picked up by Richard Denison of the Environmental Defense Fund on his blog, and I took the opportunity to respond on his post as well to clarify a few things.
The Coalition for Chemical Safety did not approach OFS to join. In fact, OFS approached the Coalition and signed up as a member via our website. As is often our practice, a representative of the Coalition contacted OFS and very clearly stated who we were, who our members were and what we were about.
After hearing us out, OFS opted to withdraw its membership.
In other words, the Coalition was open and transparent and lost a member for it, and that is fine with us. That in no way comports with my definition of someone who was “duped.” In fact, it is quite the opposite.
What this kind of soap opera has to do with the urgent business of reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act, I do not know. If you agree that reform is needed, and you agree that it must protect public safety, promote American innovation and preserve American jobs, then you agree with the Coalition – irrespective of what group you choose to join.
The Virginia Coalition for Chemical Safety posted a video on YouTube featuring Coalition supporters in Virginia who favor reforming current Toxic Substances Control Act regulations in a way that leads to greater innovation, safety and job growth in the United States. The video features:
John Paul Woodley, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and former Deputy Attorney General of Virginia for Government Operation.
Courtney Kuester, a mother who discusses the importance of having safe chemicals in the home
Paul Repak, Certified Safety Professional, DuPont Spurance Plant, discusses the Toxic Substances Control Act from the standpoint of the chemical industry.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg held a hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health today regarding chemical safety reform. CCS would like to commend Sen. Lautenberg for hearing from a diversity of players in the debate over reform of our nation’s chemical safety laws. It is widely believed this third such hearing is the final one to be held before introduction of new legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
An article in Furniture Today reminds those in the furniture industry the importance of being involved with efforts to reform chemical safety standards.
The reasons for this are twofold. First and foremost, like all other industries involved with CCS, we have a stake in chemical safety in order to protect ourselves, our families, our employees, and our customers. We need the peace of mind knowing that a new law based on the latest research will minimize the threat posed by the chemicals that people in our industry are exposed to on a daily basis. After all, chemicals are used in the production of nearly all office and home furniture, from the butyl acetate-based lacquers and acrylic coatings used to protect wood furniture, to the polyurethane foam used to provide cushioning in chairs.
Secondly, the right approach to chemical safety reform has the potential to strengthen our business. We will have more credibility with customers if they know that we adhere to modern, nationwide safety standards. Moreover, having one set of rules rather than a patchwork of wholly different, or even conflicting, state safety standards—as we have now—will make manufacturing, shipping and sales between states both safer and more cost effective. And if the furniture industry is actively involved in the reform process, we can help to ensure that the new standards are conceived and applied fairly, so that a level playing field is maintained in our very competitive marketplace.
Because of the immense value chemicals play in the production and packaging of furniture, the furniture industry must support reform of TSCA so that all manufacturers are held to the same set of federal regulations in regard to safe chemical usage. If we remain proactive on this issue, we can help inform the process and make certain that the chemicals that we rely on are fairly evaluated based on their proper use and comprehensive testing. We owe as much to the communities we serve.
